I have had many conversations with a close friend about whether greed ruins things for everyone. He always has asserted that it has. I have stated that it does not. We argued a few times before I noticed that we weren't talking about the same thing.
I contended that greed was what made me not live in a tent. Greed is why I accumulated wealth. (well, try to, anyway) Greed is, simply put, the desire for more than the basic necessities. Greed is wanting more than you have. Wanting more is what drives humanity to ever-greater endeavors, and therefore cannot, inherently, be bad. This definition is acceptable to most.
He stated, that the greed he was talking about, is the drive to have more, at the expense of another. It is what drives a business to lay people off when they have a 10 figure reserve fund. It is what makes millionaires cheat, lie and steal to become billionaires. It is what is behind the statement: "to build shareholder value". This is also an acceptable definition, to most.
Dictionary.com says that greed is "excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions". While this seems to agree more with my friend's definition, much depends on how one defines excessive. What amount of wealth is enough; that wanting more means you are greedy. I imagine you all have a dollar amount in your head. Know that, for someone, somewhere, that number makes you terribly greedy.
The problem is that the two equally valid definitions, mean almost the opposite of each other. The desire for more than you have is certainly a good thing. The desire for more than you have, at the expense of another is something else entirely. The first is what illustrates that Libertarians are right. The second shows that socialists are. (The two major parties being so thoroughly corrupt as to not even serve as examples; since they both only represent consummate greed.)
Now, taken at face value, the two types of greed are really just the desire for more. One side is tempered by morality, and the other by selfishness. The selfish person will be driven to acquire more, even at someone else's expense. The moral person will work harder to improve their lot.but not by cheating others. How people define cheating others is subject to debate as well. If you fast-talk someone into a bad deal; have they been cheated?
I'm not, as anyone who is currently having conniptions from my colloquial writing style will attest, any kind of authority on language. So I will not be so forward as to suggest a new word, phrase, or acronym, for our language. But the definition of greed is too broad to use in discussion, without modifiers. Otherwise, you can't be sure what sense of the word is actually meant.
Showing posts with label Politicians. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politicians. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
Sunday, April 13, 2014
The invisible tax and you.
In discussing school fees today I became agitated. Both sides, in this two party system, have managed to sneak in "Invisible" taxes. What I mean is the tax that derives itself from indirect means, thus it is not immediately obvious as a tax.
For example: the invisible tax in schools comes from chronically under-funding them. This causes the schools to impose "fees" on the students who enroll. Individual states have, in their constitution, that they will fund schools to make them "free" for residents. Illinois does. In fact, according to the Illinois constitution: "The State has the primary responsibility for financing the system of public education." (http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con10.htm).
So how on earth, when the state says it is their responsibility to pay for education, are extra fees even allowed? For that matter, why does everyone's property tax bill reflect LOCAL government collecting taxes to fund education. (The largest percentage of the property tax bill for every county I checked). Let them know how you feel, while you're at it. (http://www.ilga.gov/senate/)(http://www.ilga.gov/house/).
Another invisible tax is the under-reimbursement to hospitals, by medicare. If the hospital has spent money treating a patient, and been kind enough to extend credit to the government for those services, (despite being the single worst payer in the system), for a previously agreed upon amount, the least they can do is pay that amount. (mind you, that amount is already less than what everyone else is expected to pay)(Example).
Instead they hire an army of politically-connected consultants to scour through the bills, looking for inconsistencies, and then refusing to pay. Try doing that to the government. If a doctor, or hospital is abusing the system, the government should be forced to make their case and prosecute; not refuse legitimate payments.
So how is this an invisible tax? The hospital needs that money. Guess who's bill just went up. Joe and Jane insurance-holder. The insurance responds by only paying "standard and customary" amounts, and you get stuck with the rest. To fix this: "All rates for services rendered will be paid at the standard and customary rates, determined by averaging all local healthcare providers, or those used by insurance, whichever is lower."
In the interest of brevity I will stop at these two. The most egregious examples I could find. There are countless examples though. (ever pay a fee at a forest preserve?) In the interest of transparency, this cannot be allowed. A simple adjustment to state constitutions can fix this. "The state shall impose no fees, over and above any tax rates, and shall pay all activities out of the general fund" This means no licence fees, no usage fees, no tolls. Would taxes go up? Technically yes, and technically no. No, because you are paying those extra fees already. Your tax percentage would go up, so you would see it, and thus more people would be aware of the abuse.
In fact, while we're at it let's go all crazy-town and propose that: "Only income shall be taxed, and income from all sources, be they interest, sale of property, capital gains, or wages, will be taxed at the same rate. Bartered goods or services will be taxed at listed cash values." Under this system the appreciation of your home would only impact your income, and net worth, at the time of sale. So you would not be taxed on an assumed value you do not benefit from. Like you are under the current system.
But then I live in a dream world where politicians have the interests of their constituency at heart. They don't. (Rules are for thee, not for me.)
For example: the invisible tax in schools comes from chronically under-funding them. This causes the schools to impose "fees" on the students who enroll. Individual states have, in their constitution, that they will fund schools to make them "free" for residents. Illinois does. In fact, according to the Illinois constitution: "The State has the primary responsibility for financing the system of public education." (http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con10.htm).
So how on earth, when the state says it is their responsibility to pay for education, are extra fees even allowed? For that matter, why does everyone's property tax bill reflect LOCAL government collecting taxes to fund education. (The largest percentage of the property tax bill for every county I checked). Let them know how you feel, while you're at it. (http://www.ilga.gov/senate/)(http://www.ilga.gov/house/).
Another invisible tax is the under-reimbursement to hospitals, by medicare. If the hospital has spent money treating a patient, and been kind enough to extend credit to the government for those services, (despite being the single worst payer in the system), for a previously agreed upon amount, the least they can do is pay that amount. (mind you, that amount is already less than what everyone else is expected to pay)(Example).
Instead they hire an army of politically-connected consultants to scour through the bills, looking for inconsistencies, and then refusing to pay. Try doing that to the government. If a doctor, or hospital is abusing the system, the government should be forced to make their case and prosecute; not refuse legitimate payments.
So how is this an invisible tax? The hospital needs that money. Guess who's bill just went up. Joe and Jane insurance-holder. The insurance responds by only paying "standard and customary" amounts, and you get stuck with the rest. To fix this: "All rates for services rendered will be paid at the standard and customary rates, determined by averaging all local healthcare providers, or those used by insurance, whichever is lower."
In the interest of brevity I will stop at these two. The most egregious examples I could find. There are countless examples though. (ever pay a fee at a forest preserve?) In the interest of transparency, this cannot be allowed. A simple adjustment to state constitutions can fix this. "The state shall impose no fees, over and above any tax rates, and shall pay all activities out of the general fund" This means no licence fees, no usage fees, no tolls. Would taxes go up? Technically yes, and technically no. No, because you are paying those extra fees already. Your tax percentage would go up, so you would see it, and thus more people would be aware of the abuse.
In fact, while we're at it let's go all crazy-town and propose that: "Only income shall be taxed, and income from all sources, be they interest, sale of property, capital gains, or wages, will be taxed at the same rate. Bartered goods or services will be taxed at listed cash values." Under this system the appreciation of your home would only impact your income, and net worth, at the time of sale. So you would not be taxed on an assumed value you do not benefit from. Like you are under the current system.
But then I live in a dream world where politicians have the interests of their constituency at heart. They don't. (Rules are for thee, not for me.)
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Is Chris Christie too fat to run for President?
I had heard this questioned being seriously punted around in the media, so I will present a multiple choice test here, with this as the only question.
1) Is Chris Christie too fat to run for President?
a) Yes.
b) No.
c) What does his weight have to do with anything?
d) What kind of person would even think to ask that?
e) Is that really what our political process has devolved into?
f) He's too fat to run for anything.
How did you do? Lets see by examining the possible answers.
a) If this was your answer you are an unthinking moron who's voting rights should be removed. I hope you die in a fire, while sitting in a filthy bathroom stall, with the most painful food poising you have ever experienced, causing explosive diarrhea.
b) You might not be as big of an idiot as the person who answered a), but probably should have read further.
c) Partial credit for having some sense.
d) Partial credit for appropriate moral outrage.
e) Full credit. being disappointed with the whole process is the only intelligent response to such an asinine question.
f) Partial credit for having a sense of humor about such a farcical process as our Presidential races.
1) Is Chris Christie too fat to run for President?
a) Yes.
b) No.
c) What does his weight have to do with anything?
d) What kind of person would even think to ask that?
e) Is that really what our political process has devolved into?
f) He's too fat to run for anything.
How did you do? Lets see by examining the possible answers.
a) If this was your answer you are an unthinking moron who's voting rights should be removed. I hope you die in a fire, while sitting in a filthy bathroom stall, with the most painful food poising you have ever experienced, causing explosive diarrhea.
b) You might not be as big of an idiot as the person who answered a), but probably should have read further.
c) Partial credit for having some sense.
d) Partial credit for appropriate moral outrage.
e) Full credit. being disappointed with the whole process is the only intelligent response to such an asinine question.
f) Partial credit for having a sense of humor about such a farcical process as our Presidential races.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
How to spot a political extremist.
Many times, online especially, you will run across people who seem to be so far out beyond reason they cannot be reached. Those who live inside their own distortion bubbles. While identifying them in other countries is easy, as they tend to carry rifles and shoot at government buildings; here in America, we are a bit more tame. We need a way to easily tell who they are, so as not to waste time interacting with them. I have a few methods I would like to share.
First is the easiest: they self-identify as part of a known extremist group, such as the Tea-Party.
Second, and less obvious: they post items online that rely on assumptions to prove "Facts". Examples are: "working class people who vote Republican have been brainwashed because the Republican party is run by rich people." and "The Republican base fears Obama will take their guns because they are all ignorant red-necks."
Now before you point out the obvious contradiction, or say I'm picking on anyone, those examples were used only because I had seen them both in the last hour.
A third method of spotting extremists is to look for "The Emperor's new clothes" reasoning. "This is so obvious only a fool not worth talking to, would disagree" (Again, from the last hour or so.)
Any single one of these will not mark someone out as an extremist. We've all fallen into logical traps like these before. The idea though is to not look like a Bigfoot hunter. Not to insult Bigfoot hunters, as a group, I am just holding them up as the standard of self-delusional stupidity. Ghost hunters too, for that matter. If at any point, any evidence could be perceived, in an any way to back up their claims; they stop looking for any other explanation.
This is the same as the "Birthers" not accepting the President's birth certificate. "The real one is from Kenya, therefore this one is fake." No other possible explanations are pursued, nor are they accepted.
Another tack you will see is the: "This is based on real numbers", yet no source is given. This one infuriates me more than the others because, if you are online already to post something, you can take the five freaking seconds to look up a source.
All of these methods, you will see, discourage debate, contradiction, or conversation. Some outright punish it. In science, any theory which has no method for disproving it, is false by definition. We need more of that logic here.
What I am saying is based on real science and is so obvious, no one but a fool could see it any other way. The rich, gun-toting red-neck hillbilly, bible-thumping, right-wingers, will obviously disagree with this. So too will the anti-gun, entitlement-program loving, liberals who are giving our country away to the illegals. But clearly, as they disagree with this, they are fools.
Monday, November 5, 2012
A last minute plea for civil disobedience.
What I am proposing is a little ridiculous, but if you are someone I have ever met, this will not be surprising. See, being a "Third Party Voter" most of my life, in a solidly blue state (Illinois), I have come to despise the electoral college. In Illinois, unless you vote democrat, you may as well stay home.
The problems are legion with our current, electoral, approach, but let's recap. Electors are not required to vote as instructed. Districts are drawn by the party currently in control of the state. (gerrymandered). The two major parties have everything so figured out with polling, that they already know where to bother throwing money.
It all adds up the same. Your vote does not count. Not directly. Not even if your state or district votes your way.
So What I am suggesting is this: If you are in a state that is "in play", vote your conscience. Sleep the sleep of the just. But if you are in a very red state, vote for Obama. If you are in a solid blue, Romney. Even if you are voting against your conscience. Even if it will make no difference. (It won't)
Even states that "split their electorate" can participate. In those states just apply the same rule at a district level. (Blue districts vote red; red votes blue).
The idea is for as many states as possible to have the slimmest possible margin of victory. So that no matter who wins, the popular vote will not be the same as the electoral vote. Maybe, if we do this enough, things will change.
Maybe I'll win the lottery. Maybe the tides will stop because I say so. Maybe, in the long run, if you look at voting records rather than rhetoric, the two major party candidates are so similar it won't make a difference anyway.
So get out and vote. If you are in Ohio it might even mean something.
The problems are legion with our current, electoral, approach, but let's recap. Electors are not required to vote as instructed. Districts are drawn by the party currently in control of the state. (gerrymandered). The two major parties have everything so figured out with polling, that they already know where to bother throwing money.
It all adds up the same. Your vote does not count. Not directly. Not even if your state or district votes your way.
So What I am suggesting is this: If you are in a state that is "in play", vote your conscience. Sleep the sleep of the just. But if you are in a very red state, vote for Obama. If you are in a solid blue, Romney. Even if you are voting against your conscience. Even if it will make no difference. (It won't)
Even states that "split their electorate" can participate. In those states just apply the same rule at a district level. (Blue districts vote red; red votes blue).
The idea is for as many states as possible to have the slimmest possible margin of victory. So that no matter who wins, the popular vote will not be the same as the electoral vote. Maybe, if we do this enough, things will change.
Maybe I'll win the lottery. Maybe the tides will stop because I say so. Maybe, in the long run, if you look at voting records rather than rhetoric, the two major party candidates are so similar it won't make a difference anyway.
So get out and vote. If you are in Ohio it might even mean something.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
No requirement of truth
A recent post hijacking got me thinking. The "two parties" have done a perfect job of brainwashing America. Ask someone to define a typical Republican and they would list them as being "Rich, white guys" at best. Ask for the typical Democrat and you might hear talk of being "socialist". Why do we believe this?
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." -H.L. Mencken-
That's pretty much it isn't it? We believe what we are being sold. We see the advertisements and disregard the ones we don't agree with. We see the ones we agree with and add those "facts" to our list of talking points. Here is a fact for you. Political speech has no requirement for truth. That's right. There is no such thing as false advertising, bait and switch, or breach of contract associated with political advertising.
You may have heard the radio spots where one candidate (Beaubien) is claiming the other (McSweeney) made comments about denying a woman's right to an abortion, (He did, but not in that context) then launches, without segue-way, into a quote, made by someone else, that is very inflammatory The ad then states that McSweeney, being of the same party, clearly feels the same way. If this were advertising it would be brought to court over this flagrant misstatement. But political speech is exempted from the requirement of truth.
McSweeny, of course, ran an ad defending himself and saying that Beaubien was just trying to cover up having voted for a tax increase. I still don't see what one has to do with the other, and they both are lying. Again, there is no requirement not to.
See the idea is that the opposing party will just run an ad countering the claims of the first. A great solution if there are only two, well-backed and very well-connected, parties. Slander a green party, libertarian, or other "third party" candidate and they will just have to take it. They don't have the money to run a counter ad. That is a bit imbalanced isn't it? If they were selling a product they would be brought to court over price-fixing, market-fixing, or collusion.
So the "two parties" have a lock on the system, no requirement for truth, and a set of stereotypes they have sold the American people on, to such a degree that we automatically assume Romney to be an elitist, owned by big business, and Obama a gun-hating socialist. Their voting records actually show those roles to be reversed.
I would ask you to make sure you go vote your conscience, but you really can't. Unless your candidate is the honest one, and clearly, the other guy is lying. Sure, we'll go with that.
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." -H.L. Mencken-
That's pretty much it isn't it? We believe what we are being sold. We see the advertisements and disregard the ones we don't agree with. We see the ones we agree with and add those "facts" to our list of talking points. Here is a fact for you. Political speech has no requirement for truth. That's right. There is no such thing as false advertising, bait and switch, or breach of contract associated with political advertising.
You may have heard the radio spots where one candidate (Beaubien) is claiming the other (McSweeney) made comments about denying a woman's right to an abortion, (He did, but not in that context) then launches, without segue-way, into a quote, made by someone else, that is very inflammatory The ad then states that McSweeney, being of the same party, clearly feels the same way. If this were advertising it would be brought to court over this flagrant misstatement. But political speech is exempted from the requirement of truth.
McSweeny, of course, ran an ad defending himself and saying that Beaubien was just trying to cover up having voted for a tax increase. I still don't see what one has to do with the other, and they both are lying. Again, there is no requirement not to.
See the idea is that the opposing party will just run an ad countering the claims of the first. A great solution if there are only two, well-backed and very well-connected, parties. Slander a green party, libertarian, or other "third party" candidate and they will just have to take it. They don't have the money to run a counter ad. That is a bit imbalanced isn't it? If they were selling a product they would be brought to court over price-fixing, market-fixing, or collusion.
So the "two parties" have a lock on the system, no requirement for truth, and a set of stereotypes they have sold the American people on, to such a degree that we automatically assume Romney to be an elitist, owned by big business, and Obama a gun-hating socialist. Their voting records actually show those roles to be reversed.
I would ask you to make sure you go vote your conscience, but you really can't. Unless your candidate is the honest one, and clearly, the other guy is lying. Sure, we'll go with that.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Not By Enough
You, no doubt, will have heard of the killings in Libya of an ambassador and others over a movie. That's right a movie that made "the prophet" look bad. Take the time to google the movie "Innocence of Muslims". I can't really link to it because it keeps being taken down.
Five seconds tells you this is not a big-budget film. This is basement quality, maybe. But apparently, despite the majority of Americans never having heard of it, represents everyone's views. So much so we are all held accountable for it. Seriously, its getting old being the good guy.
Is it time to hold an entire nation accountable for the actions of a few idiots? I think there are a few people here who would be OK with turning the entire Middle-East into a green sheet of glass right now. Frankly, its hard to argue against it. (or so I've heard, I generally argue in favor of it)
If we retaliate for this however; would we be any better than them? In the words of Lrrr, Ruler of Omicron Persei 8; "Yes, but not by enough." We can't just blow up entire countries over crap like this, because frankly, they all do it. It would feel good for a while, sure, but solve nothing.
I advocate leaving the idiots to rot. Electric cars now, powered by batteries, (or ultra-capacitors) charged by safe, renewable, modern nuclear power plants. Until we can develop solar, wind, and wave enough to be viable, anyway. (If that can even be done). For the interim, until they are built, we drill, we mine, and we make do.
Once we devalue the one thing they have that is of any worth, they will cease to matter and can throw rocks at each other until the end of time. No one else would care enough to be there. Not even to watch.
Then, once the immediate issues are addressed, we develop some other technology to move our wheels of industry. Something free and abundant. Say, a solar cell powering electrodes and low voltage pumps, extracting hydrogen from water, to use in fuel cells. Oh, wait we can do that now. (Honda has a test track and car that use this set-up) Surely then, there is some reason we don't.
It's almost like someone must want the primitives in the Middle-East to have power. (I know they were a center of learning long before the western world, but seriously the world has moved past 1400; they haven't). So like most ideas presented here, this will be left behind because it conflicts with the greed of those in charge. Democrat, Republican, Tastycrat, Fingerlican, it doesn't matter. Our politicians are "in-pocket" to the petroleum industry.
Five seconds tells you this is not a big-budget film. This is basement quality, maybe. But apparently, despite the majority of Americans never having heard of it, represents everyone's views. So much so we are all held accountable for it. Seriously, its getting old being the good guy.
Is it time to hold an entire nation accountable for the actions of a few idiots? I think there are a few people here who would be OK with turning the entire Middle-East into a green sheet of glass right now. Frankly, its hard to argue against it. (or so I've heard, I generally argue in favor of it)
If we retaliate for this however; would we be any better than them? In the words of Lrrr, Ruler of Omicron Persei 8; "Yes, but not by enough." We can't just blow up entire countries over crap like this, because frankly, they all do it. It would feel good for a while, sure, but solve nothing.
I advocate leaving the idiots to rot. Electric cars now, powered by batteries, (or ultra-capacitors) charged by safe, renewable, modern nuclear power plants. Until we can develop solar, wind, and wave enough to be viable, anyway. (If that can even be done). For the interim, until they are built, we drill, we mine, and we make do.
Once we devalue the one thing they have that is of any worth, they will cease to matter and can throw rocks at each other until the end of time. No one else would care enough to be there. Not even to watch.
Then, once the immediate issues are addressed, we develop some other technology to move our wheels of industry. Something free and abundant. Say, a solar cell powering electrodes and low voltage pumps, extracting hydrogen from water, to use in fuel cells. Oh, wait we can do that now. (Honda has a test track and car that use this set-up) Surely then, there is some reason we don't.
It's almost like someone must want the primitives in the Middle-East to have power. (I know they were a center of learning long before the western world, but seriously the world has moved past 1400; they haven't). So like most ideas presented here, this will be left behind because it conflicts with the greed of those in charge. Democrat, Republican, Tastycrat, Fingerlican, it doesn't matter. Our politicians are "in-pocket" to the petroleum industry.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
The same side
I recently received my first external comment on a post I had written. It was critical. The only surprise is that it took this long. The person "called me out" as someone who sounded like they have never had to struggle. This is funny. We used to hang out at a buddy's house, as kids, because his family, on public aid, could afford to run their air conditioner while we, supported by work, could not.
Rather than launch into a post critical of those on public aid, I will use this space to target the true villains. I am referring, of course to our public officials. Not because they have allowed this to happen; (I feel a society that can take care of its needy is truly enlightened) but because they have mismanaged the rest of my tax dollars to the point of causing problems for everyone.
See the whole link card program makes up a very small portion of an otherwise bloated budget. And really, putting a better class of food in a child's mouth is not a sin. But because it is yet another wasteful cog in the refuse generator that is Illinois government, I took undue notice.
It isn't fair to single out this program, which at least benefits some people who need it, when our state loses more each to; questionable accounting practices, corruption, entitlement, patronage, and insider deals.
I guess what I'm getting at, is that I fell into the trap the bastards set for me. I started to blame other taxpayers, as though we are actually on different sides, rather than attack the corrupt system, run by corrupt politicians, who have gamed all of us into thinking we need to fight each other; rather than fight the source of our problems. In short, if the rest of my redistributed "wealth" were being stewarded properly, I would never have given a thought to the link card being accepted by Market Day.
Rather than launch into a post critical of those on public aid, I will use this space to target the true villains. I am referring, of course to our public officials. Not because they have allowed this to happen; (I feel a society that can take care of its needy is truly enlightened) but because they have mismanaged the rest of my tax dollars to the point of causing problems for everyone.
See the whole link card program makes up a very small portion of an otherwise bloated budget. And really, putting a better class of food in a child's mouth is not a sin. But because it is yet another wasteful cog in the refuse generator that is Illinois government, I took undue notice.
It isn't fair to single out this program, which at least benefits some people who need it, when our state loses more each to; questionable accounting practices, corruption, entitlement, patronage, and insider deals.
I guess what I'm getting at, is that I fell into the trap the bastards set for me. I started to blame other taxpayers, as though we are actually on different sides, rather than attack the corrupt system, run by corrupt politicians, who have gamed all of us into thinking we need to fight each other; rather than fight the source of our problems. In short, if the rest of my redistributed "wealth" were being stewarded properly, I would never have given a thought to the link card being accepted by Market Day.
Monday, August 13, 2012
S 3414 Cyber Gun Control.
http://votesmart.org/bill/15638/41248#41248
A quick synopsis: S3414 is yet another attempt by government to place scary "big brother" style laws in place to monitor / protect us from ourselves. This of course is in the guise of "cyber security". While this is deplorable enough in its own right, it is what was done to the proposed bill that really agitates me.
An addendum was made to the end of the bill, after it was proposed, to "reinstate" the assault weapons ban. I place that in quotes because the "ban" really only served to aggravate law abiding citizens, and make money for collectors who sold "Pre-ban" guns at ludicrous mark ups. The only saving grace is that any cyber security bill has no chance of passing.
Rather than bemoan a liberal power grab, which this is an attempt at; I want to address the "root-cause" of this problem. At the heart of this is the congress' ability to add irrelevant language to a proposed bill. Bad enough when it is a pork barrel rider, but downright asinine here.
The time has come for a law to be passed stating that each separate issue needs to be a separate bill. End this behavior now. How many perks were hidden in the Affordable Care Act, to entice state representatives and senators to vote for it. Those should all be separate issues, and would never have passed alone. This means that the congress would have had to pass it on its own merit. (I will not speculate as to whether it would have happened, we all lived through it)
Imagine, congress legally obligated to a degree of honesty. Now if only we had one honest person in congress to propose such a bill. (Which would, naturally have language added by opponents to kill it.)
If only there were some other way to get this done. Wait, I have a foggy memory of something from my constitution studies... (as should you all)
http://www.lexisnexis.com/constitution/amendments_howitsdone.asp
Although that method depends on state governments... Not likely to happen then is it...
But then, in my world, people would shut off the TV long enough to be appropriately enraged at this behavior, by the people claiming to represent their interests, and leave the house to go vote. A man can dream, can't he.
A quick synopsis: S3414 is yet another attempt by government to place scary "big brother" style laws in place to monitor / protect us from ourselves. This of course is in the guise of "cyber security". While this is deplorable enough in its own right, it is what was done to the proposed bill that really agitates me.
An addendum was made to the end of the bill, after it was proposed, to "reinstate" the assault weapons ban. I place that in quotes because the "ban" really only served to aggravate law abiding citizens, and make money for collectors who sold "Pre-ban" guns at ludicrous mark ups. The only saving grace is that any cyber security bill has no chance of passing.
Rather than bemoan a liberal power grab, which this is an attempt at; I want to address the "root-cause" of this problem. At the heart of this is the congress' ability to add irrelevant language to a proposed bill. Bad enough when it is a pork barrel rider, but downright asinine here.
The time has come for a law to be passed stating that each separate issue needs to be a separate bill. End this behavior now. How many perks were hidden in the Affordable Care Act, to entice state representatives and senators to vote for it. Those should all be separate issues, and would never have passed alone. This means that the congress would have had to pass it on its own merit. (I will not speculate as to whether it would have happened, we all lived through it)
Imagine, congress legally obligated to a degree of honesty. Now if only we had one honest person in congress to propose such a bill. (Which would, naturally have language added by opponents to kill it.)
If only there were some other way to get this done. Wait, I have a foggy memory of something from my constitution studies... (as should you all)
http://www.lexisnexis.com/constitution/amendments_howitsdone.asp
Although that method depends on state governments... Not likely to happen then is it...
But then, in my world, people would shut off the TV long enough to be appropriately enraged at this behavior, by the people claiming to represent their interests, and leave the house to go vote. A man can dream, can't he.
Friday, August 10, 2012
Healthcare: A Uniquely American Solution.
After much thinking, and more discussion, (yes, that was intentional) I have arrived at a solution, agreeable to both sides, for the problem with America's healthcare system. Again, this is why it is important to think before you act. (ahem, Congress, Mr. President) I hope that whichever person wins the Presidency, and the new Congress, will see this and at least think it over.
First, let's discuss what the problems are. Insurance costs too much. Many people are denied it because of this. Insurance is allowed to deny coverage for any reason they want, leaving the consumer to argue for coverage they already have, and have already paid for. And finally, any discussion on fixing the issue results in claims of socialism. (pass a law that states insurance companies can't run at a profit, socialized medicine etc.)
We all know it needs to be fixed. We all know that the cost of insurance is driven by the uninsured, not the insured. Hospitals have to charge those who can pay, more; to cover those who can't, because government is asleep at the wheel. Lawyers only serve to drive the prices higher with lawsuits that are largely without merit. I could go on...
The fix is simple. Treat insurance like any other contract business. That's it. Every problem we have is because they are allowed to operate under a different set of rules than the rest of the business world. If insurance was merely a coverage contract and was denied the power to deny coverage, like any other contract business, it would fix almost everything.
This would not require you to have coverage if you didn't want it. (making the wealthy happy) It would not demand that an American company operate without profit. Free trade is the cornerstone of the American way of life. That is the problem currently, there is nothing in the insurance industry that is the same as any other industry. The safety net preventing abuse by doctors and the insured, would be co-pays and delectables, which would be regulated like utilities, to prevent abuses by the insurers.
Insurance companies would cover anything ordered by a doctor, that was performed on a patient. (cosmetic surgery would be denied, unless required to restore appearance after a surgery or other treatment.) Any issues about necessity would be handled in court, after payment was made, just like any other contract dispute. (keeping the lawyers employed) That is to say the burden of proof would be shifted to the accuser, not the defendants. If that standard seems oddly familiar, there is a reason for that. This would have the side affect of lowering the profitability of insurance companies, since they would be unable to randomly deny coverage. (making the middle class happy)
Doctors and hospitals would no longer need to employ an army of people to work in the offices, just to untangle the individual policy quirks. Claims sent to the insurance company would be paid. End of story. The cost of doing business in medicine would drop overnight. To a point where more people could afford it.
If you have noticed that I make no mention of coverage for the uninsured, there is another fix for that. We need to further reduce costs by limiting a physician's, and a hospital's liability. Then apply that standard evenly in all states. Right now Illinois has a shortage of certain specialties, because they are relocating to states with liability caps.
This would reduce costs further. Then, we need to make insurance a part of employment. If you have a job, part of your wages are insurance coverage. (making the "working poor" happy) While there are those who see this as punishing small business, some quick math would show that , if government were honest, (see end of paragraph) taxes would go down an amount nearly equal to the cost of providing insurance; due to the savings realized, and the number of people who would no longer need public aid. (Governmental honesty is the only real problem with this plan)
Remember there is a large part of our workforce who have jobs, but no insurance. What happens when they go in to the hospital? Either they don't pay, or they get public aid. Either way serves to either increase taxes, or increase medical charges to those with insurance, in order to cover it.
With these fixes in place, the current public aid system would cease being overburdened, thus enabling government to pay their bills. (pleasing the unemployed, doctors and hospitals)
As always, I welcome responses. (clean and well thought out)(I promise not to moderate you out based on opinion)
First, let's discuss what the problems are. Insurance costs too much. Many people are denied it because of this. Insurance is allowed to deny coverage for any reason they want, leaving the consumer to argue for coverage they already have, and have already paid for. And finally, any discussion on fixing the issue results in claims of socialism. (pass a law that states insurance companies can't run at a profit, socialized medicine etc.)
We all know it needs to be fixed. We all know that the cost of insurance is driven by the uninsured, not the insured. Hospitals have to charge those who can pay, more; to cover those who can't, because government is asleep at the wheel. Lawyers only serve to drive the prices higher with lawsuits that are largely without merit. I could go on...
The fix is simple. Treat insurance like any other contract business. That's it. Every problem we have is because they are allowed to operate under a different set of rules than the rest of the business world. If insurance was merely a coverage contract and was denied the power to deny coverage, like any other contract business, it would fix almost everything.
This would not require you to have coverage if you didn't want it. (making the wealthy happy) It would not demand that an American company operate without profit. Free trade is the cornerstone of the American way of life. That is the problem currently, there is nothing in the insurance industry that is the same as any other industry. The safety net preventing abuse by doctors and the insured, would be co-pays and delectables, which would be regulated like utilities, to prevent abuses by the insurers.
Insurance companies would cover anything ordered by a doctor, that was performed on a patient. (cosmetic surgery would be denied, unless required to restore appearance after a surgery or other treatment.) Any issues about necessity would be handled in court, after payment was made, just like any other contract dispute. (keeping the lawyers employed) That is to say the burden of proof would be shifted to the accuser, not the defendants. If that standard seems oddly familiar, there is a reason for that. This would have the side affect of lowering the profitability of insurance companies, since they would be unable to randomly deny coverage. (making the middle class happy)
Doctors and hospitals would no longer need to employ an army of people to work in the offices, just to untangle the individual policy quirks. Claims sent to the insurance company would be paid. End of story. The cost of doing business in medicine would drop overnight. To a point where more people could afford it.
If you have noticed that I make no mention of coverage for the uninsured, there is another fix for that. We need to further reduce costs by limiting a physician's, and a hospital's liability. Then apply that standard evenly in all states. Right now Illinois has a shortage of certain specialties, because they are relocating to states with liability caps.
This would reduce costs further. Then, we need to make insurance a part of employment. If you have a job, part of your wages are insurance coverage. (making the "working poor" happy) While there are those who see this as punishing small business, some quick math would show that , if government were honest, (see end of paragraph) taxes would go down an amount nearly equal to the cost of providing insurance; due to the savings realized, and the number of people who would no longer need public aid. (Governmental honesty is the only real problem with this plan)
Remember there is a large part of our workforce who have jobs, but no insurance. What happens when they go in to the hospital? Either they don't pay, or they get public aid. Either way serves to either increase taxes, or increase medical charges to those with insurance, in order to cover it.
With these fixes in place, the current public aid system would cease being overburdened, thus enabling government to pay their bills. (pleasing the unemployed, doctors and hospitals)
As always, I welcome responses. (clean and well thought out)(I promise not to moderate you out based on opinion)
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Governor Quinn proposed assault weapons ban.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57484162/illinois-gov-proposes-state-assault-weapons-ban/ (1)
http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lru/Ilconstitution.pdf (2)
http://voices.yahoo.com/illinois-con-con-issues-amendatory-veto-power-1996595.html?cat=75 (3)
There. Now you can do some light reading and not have to take my word for it. I figured you wouldn't want to, so let me explain. Governor Quinn, of Illinois, has proposed an assault weapons ban. He intends to accomplish this by using his "amendatory veto power" to add language to another bill, should it pass.
The bill in question, proposed by Republican state Sen. David Luechtefeld, would allow "Illinois residents to have ammunition purchased from in-state companies shipped to them. Currently, Illinois residents can only have ammunition shipped if it's bought out of state." (2).
This amendment violates not only logic and sense, but also the state's constitution, and every ruling on the governor's veto authority by the state supreme court. As in the following:
"The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that an amendatory veto cannot create an entirely new bill, change the fundamental purpose of a bill, or make 'substantial or expansive changes' in a bill. However, the court has also ruled that a governor can make changes that go beyond technical corrections (typographical or drafting errors) or matters of form." (3)
So, were talking technical corrections, or minor tweaks. Not changing the entire purpose of the bill. Why is it important to limit this power?
"An amendatory veto must be overridden by a three-fifths vote of both houses, or accepted by a simple majority vote. If the legislature takes no action on an AV, the entire bill dies." (3)
So either a super-majority must deny the changes, or a simple majority pass them, or the entire bill, which in this case had an entirely different point, will die. It is being used as a way to subvert the public interest, rather than a way to make minor adjustments to a bill.
Imagine if someone had added an "amendatory veto" to lower the age of consent to ten, to accommodate pedophiles, to the amendment allowing same-sex partnerships. It sounds like I'm being ridiculous, but this would legally be the same thing. Then the bill would have been allowed to die; its original purpose, and the will of the people, having been subverted by the whim of one person, the governor.
This should infuriate every single citizen of Illinois. Not because the moronic Chicago machine is over-riding the sense displayed elsewhere in the state, again; but because the governor feels he can make sweeping changes to law, with the capriciousness of an emperor.
Again, this is not about guns. My anger arises from the belief in Illinois, that the power of government is derived from the power seized from its citizens, and not from the consent of the governed.
Two items from our state constitution, the first is from article one, section twenty two:
"Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (1)
Furthermore, assuming you are the kind to deny an individual's right to keep and bear arms (the supreme court upholds it BTW); under article twelve, titled "Militia", section one. Membership:
"The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons residing in the State except those exempted by law." (1)
Those exempted by law are felons, by the way. So on every count, Quinn has no respect for the will of the people, established law, or the constitution of the state of Illinois. And don't get me started on the U.S. constitution...
http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lru/Ilconstitution.pdf (2)
http://voices.yahoo.com/illinois-con-con-issues-amendatory-veto-power-1996595.html?cat=75 (3)
There. Now you can do some light reading and not have to take my word for it. I figured you wouldn't want to, so let me explain. Governor Quinn, of Illinois, has proposed an assault weapons ban. He intends to accomplish this by using his "amendatory veto power" to add language to another bill, should it pass.
The bill in question, proposed by Republican state Sen. David Luechtefeld, would allow "Illinois residents to have ammunition purchased from in-state companies shipped to them. Currently, Illinois residents can only have ammunition shipped if it's bought out of state." (2).
This amendment violates not only logic and sense, but also the state's constitution, and every ruling on the governor's veto authority by the state supreme court. As in the following:
"The Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that an amendatory veto cannot create an entirely new bill, change the fundamental purpose of a bill, or make 'substantial or expansive changes' in a bill. However, the court has also ruled that a governor can make changes that go beyond technical corrections (typographical or drafting errors) or matters of form." (3)
So, were talking technical corrections, or minor tweaks. Not changing the entire purpose of the bill. Why is it important to limit this power?
"An amendatory veto must be overridden by a three-fifths vote of both houses, or accepted by a simple majority vote. If the legislature takes no action on an AV, the entire bill dies." (3)
So either a super-majority must deny the changes, or a simple majority pass them, or the entire bill, which in this case had an entirely different point, will die. It is being used as a way to subvert the public interest, rather than a way to make minor adjustments to a bill.
Imagine if someone had added an "amendatory veto" to lower the age of consent to ten, to accommodate pedophiles, to the amendment allowing same-sex partnerships. It sounds like I'm being ridiculous, but this would legally be the same thing. Then the bill would have been allowed to die; its original purpose, and the will of the people, having been subverted by the whim of one person, the governor.
This should infuriate every single citizen of Illinois. Not because the moronic Chicago machine is over-riding the sense displayed elsewhere in the state, again; but because the governor feels he can make sweeping changes to law, with the capriciousness of an emperor.
Again, this is not about guns. My anger arises from the belief in Illinois, that the power of government is derived from the power seized from its citizens, and not from the consent of the governed.
Two items from our state constitution, the first is from article one, section twenty two:
"Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (1)
Furthermore, assuming you are the kind to deny an individual's right to keep and bear arms (the supreme court upholds it BTW); under article twelve, titled "Militia", section one. Membership:
"The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons residing in the State except those exempted by law." (1)
Those exempted by law are felons, by the way. So on every count, Quinn has no respect for the will of the people, established law, or the constitution of the state of Illinois. And don't get me started on the U.S. constitution...
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
How Chicago keeps you safe
Recently I was in a gun store with my father and brother. The owner was trying to talk my dad into buying an old revolver from the case because they would be gone soon.
"Why, you got a buyer?" my dad says.
"No, Chicago's doing another gun buyback. I get a hundred dollar gift card for each of them, no limit."
"No limit?"
"Yeah, you go to one of these things and all the guns have tags on 'em. They're all from stores."
So let's review the stupid here. First, this costs a crap-ton of taxpayer money, in an already bankrupt city. Sounds like a bad idea, because it is. I can't imagine the teachers, who did not get a contracted raise, and have already voted in favor of a strike, will miss this item when the city claims it has no money for raises during the coming negotiations.
Second, these guns are not checked against the database of stolen firearms. Apply that logic to a car, or computer turn in. No questions asked, they are destroyed. The real owner will never see that expensive item again. Sounds bad, is bad. Especially when you consider that law enforcement has an obligation to return stolen goods to their owners.
Third. If the firearm had been used in a murder, the odds of solving that murder just went down to zero. These guns are accepted, "no questions asked", and destroyed. I guess Chicago figures they can't afford to hire enough detectives anyway, so why have them actually solve murders. They need to spend their time pressing felony charges against recreational pot smokers... but that is another post. (I know they are working toward misdemeanor tickets, I just don't think it will happen there, it makes too damn much sense)
Fourth, as the owner of the gun store pointed out, criminals don't turn in guns at these things, (unless they need evidence destroyed) but store owners with non-functioning junk pistols do. I do think we should always help our small business owners, but this is not the way to do it.
But hey, if you need to plan a murder, the city of Chicago nicely posts the dates and times of all the gun turn in events. Turn the damn thing in warm and still smoking. They won't care, as long as they are "Keeping you safe, by keeping guns off the streets"
Glad I can watch this mess from afar and laugh at it. (Not far enough, but far).
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Dewey defeats Santorum.
I will be brief. With slightly over 20 percent of precincts reporting, ABC news was calling the win for Romney. An hour later Romney's lead was a bit less, but they were still calling it for him. Half the state is currently reporting.
It would be funny if Santorum pulled this one out. How could he, at this point? Good question, it shows you're thinking. I will elucidate below. Also pontificate, and BS-ify.
See the counties reporting first, are the ones with the newest, fastest, voting machines. Those are the large urban centers that are more centrist. The counties not yet reporting are the ones with older slower gear, lower populations, and guess what: voters who are more conservative. Romney's lead isn't that high as to be insurmountable. Santorum could pull off a victory yet. (Not cheering for him, Voted Paul, as always.)
I'm not saying Santorum will win, but c'mon networks, are you incapable of learning?
It would be funny if Santorum pulled this one out. How could he, at this point? Good question, it shows you're thinking. I will elucidate below. Also pontificate, and BS-ify.
See the counties reporting first, are the ones with the newest, fastest, voting machines. Those are the large urban centers that are more centrist. The counties not yet reporting are the ones with older slower gear, lower populations, and guess what: voters who are more conservative. Romney's lead isn't that high as to be insurmountable. Santorum could pull off a victory yet. (Not cheering for him, Voted Paul, as always.)
I'm not saying Santorum will win, but c'mon networks, are you incapable of learning?
Monday, February 27, 2012
Reproductive rights and the church
Attention: if you have a short attention span skip ahead to the conclusion; then become angry because you do not understand where it came from. This will likely be a long one.
There has recently been some to-do over the government's insistence that employers pay for birth control. The Catholic Church, as was expected, became indignant. See, they run the second largest social services charity in the United States. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charities) Care to guess the largest? The U.S. government! Hooray for you, you got it right. Keep in mind the two largest charities as you read. The "compromise", which was laughable, at best, was that insurance companies pay for it.
I say this is laughable because, as anyone who works in healthcare knows, most hospitals of decent size, are self-insured. The Catholic Charities is easily of sufficient size. So if their insurers pay for it... oh wait what does self-insured mean again? The other angle to laugh from, is that insurance companies are better off paying for birth control. Recent errors in packaging aside (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/27/birth-control-recall-norgestimat-ethinyl-estradiol-tablets_n_1304950.html), birth control is by far cheaper than the birth, and subsequent healthcare of a child. That is to say insurance companies have been covering birth control to a greater degree lately, for purely financial reasons.
The separation of church and state is a two way street. Catholic Charities is completely within their rights to not cover birth control, on moral grounds. Especially figuring that it is cheaper to cover birth control than to not. The people who work there are free to work elsewhere, should they object. That is the idea behind a free market. If I object to any aspect of how I'm treated at work, I can leave any time.
Now to the other part of the joke. The issue of "reproductive rights" Someone's reproductive rights are violated when they are told they are not allowed to produce offspring. They are violated when they are forced to produce offspring. They are not violated when they are expected to pay for their own Norgestimate.
By that logic, as a firearm owner, my employer should be required to pay for my gun safe. Allow me to explain. I have made a choice to engage in an activity that I am not legally compelled to engage in. Gun ownership = Sex, in this argument. The safety measure to prevent unintended consequences should, under this logic, be paid for by someone other than the person who made the choice to engage in said activity, in this case my employer. Birth control = gun safe. It sounds idiotic when you look at it from the gun standpoint, because it is idiotic from the birth control side.
We are then left with two questions. "Why is government forcing this issue on the Catholic Church?"; and "Why are they allowing it to become a debate about reproductive rights?" First we will address the latter. They are turning it into an issue of reproductive rights because it brings high-profile attention from people who will win that argument. Bear in mind that it never was about reproductive rights. Next, let's look at the first question; "Why is government forcing this issue on the Catholic Church?" Remember how they are the second largest charity provider. Why does McDonald's charge less than Burger King? To try to eliminate the competition. Ask a Communist: remove religion and people will have only government to cling to for charity.
Now if you'll excuse me, my tinfoil hat is interfering with my computer...
There has recently been some to-do over the government's insistence that employers pay for birth control. The Catholic Church, as was expected, became indignant. See, they run the second largest social services charity in the United States. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Charities) Care to guess the largest? The U.S. government! Hooray for you, you got it right. Keep in mind the two largest charities as you read. The "compromise", which was laughable, at best, was that insurance companies pay for it.
I say this is laughable because, as anyone who works in healthcare knows, most hospitals of decent size, are self-insured. The Catholic Charities is easily of sufficient size. So if their insurers pay for it... oh wait what does self-insured mean again? The other angle to laugh from, is that insurance companies are better off paying for birth control. Recent errors in packaging aside (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/27/birth-control-recall-norgestimat-ethinyl-estradiol-tablets_n_1304950.html), birth control is by far cheaper than the birth, and subsequent healthcare of a child. That is to say insurance companies have been covering birth control to a greater degree lately, for purely financial reasons.
The separation of church and state is a two way street. Catholic Charities is completely within their rights to not cover birth control, on moral grounds. Especially figuring that it is cheaper to cover birth control than to not. The people who work there are free to work elsewhere, should they object. That is the idea behind a free market. If I object to any aspect of how I'm treated at work, I can leave any time.
Now to the other part of the joke. The issue of "reproductive rights" Someone's reproductive rights are violated when they are told they are not allowed to produce offspring. They are violated when they are forced to produce offspring. They are not violated when they are expected to pay for their own Norgestimate.
By that logic, as a firearm owner, my employer should be required to pay for my gun safe. Allow me to explain. I have made a choice to engage in an activity that I am not legally compelled to engage in. Gun ownership = Sex, in this argument. The safety measure to prevent unintended consequences should, under this logic, be paid for by someone other than the person who made the choice to engage in said activity, in this case my employer. Birth control = gun safe. It sounds idiotic when you look at it from the gun standpoint, because it is idiotic from the birth control side.
We are then left with two questions. "Why is government forcing this issue on the Catholic Church?"; and "Why are they allowing it to become a debate about reproductive rights?" First we will address the latter. They are turning it into an issue of reproductive rights because it brings high-profile attention from people who will win that argument. Bear in mind that it never was about reproductive rights. Next, let's look at the first question; "Why is government forcing this issue on the Catholic Church?" Remember how they are the second largest charity provider. Why does McDonald's charge less than Burger King? To try to eliminate the competition. Ask a Communist: remove religion and people will have only government to cling to for charity.
Now if you'll excuse me, my tinfoil hat is interfering with my computer...
Sunday, December 4, 2011
American's Elect is a scam
American's Elect (http://www.americanselect.org) is a scam. I had, in the past, recommended those with a dissatisfaction in either or both parties, to head to their website and check them out. That was than. I will state, for the record, A: that the organization I recommended is a scam that had taken me in, and B: no longer exists, as such.
You see, in its early days it was an organization that claimed to want to represent a candidate, not a party. They claimed they would get their candidate, chosen by an online process, (should have been alarm klaxons) on the ballot in all 50 states. They had some start up capital provided by some rich guys, but assured everyone that all of our interests are the same. A dissatisfaction with politics as usual.
Well there are certain rules that political parties are required to play by. One of them is that they have to disclose funding. Now I have seen, on both sides, how easily this is faked, but at least they are making the effort to fake it. When American's Elect was asked to provide the sources of their funding, as required by any 527 organization, (its a class of charities or non profits) they first balked. Then they delayed. Then the Re-filed themselves as a 501 c(4) charity, which is not required to disclose its funding sources. That alone legally precludes them from backing a political candidate. But as you will see, they don't feel the rules apply to them.
A quick search shows that they were initially funded (no such records are available for the present time, of course) by a group of hedge-fund managers. So, rich people playing at politics. I don't know if they got tired of trying to buy one side or the other, or if they just felt they could hijack an election, but theories abound.
One is that they are working for the Democrats, trying to split the conservative vote. Possible. Rich guys, power, Possible. Doubtful. Another is that they are working for the Republicans trying to split the liberal vote. Possible, youth oriented, demographics show liberal tendencies, Possible, Doubtful. Another is that they are just trying to win an election directly for the hedge fund managers so they can directly change the tax structure in their favor. Possible. More likely. Any way you slice it, it is the lowest form of rich people, claiming to be aligned with the disenfranchised poor.
Why do I say the lowest form of rich people. Industrialists build things and provide jobs. Even the green movement creates hard goods and creates jobs. Wall street, to a degree helps creation of jobs. Hedge Funds though:
"A hedge fund is a private pool of capital actively managed by an investment adviser.[1][2] Hedge funds are only open for investment to a limited number of accredited or qualified investors who meet criteria set by regulators. These investors can be institutions, such as pension funds, university endowments and foundations, or high net worth individuals."
"Because hedge funds are not sold to the public or retail investors, their advisers have historically not been subject to the same restrictions that govern other investment fund advisers, with regard to how the fund may be structured and how strategies are employed. Hedge funds must now comply with many of the same statutory and regulatory restrictions as other institutional market participants.[8] Regulations passed in the United States and Europe after the 2008 credit crisis are intended to increase government oversight of hedge funds and eliminate any regulatory gaps.[9]"
You see, in its early days it was an organization that claimed to want to represent a candidate, not a party. They claimed they would get their candidate, chosen by an online process, (should have been alarm klaxons) on the ballot in all 50 states. They had some start up capital provided by some rich guys, but assured everyone that all of our interests are the same. A dissatisfaction with politics as usual.
Well there are certain rules that political parties are required to play by. One of them is that they have to disclose funding. Now I have seen, on both sides, how easily this is faked, but at least they are making the effort to fake it. When American's Elect was asked to provide the sources of their funding, as required by any 527 organization, (its a class of charities or non profits) they first balked. Then they delayed. Then the Re-filed themselves as a 501 c(4) charity, which is not required to disclose its funding sources. That alone legally precludes them from backing a political candidate. But as you will see, they don't feel the rules apply to them.
A quick search shows that they were initially funded (no such records are available for the present time, of course) by a group of hedge-fund managers. So, rich people playing at politics. I don't know if they got tired of trying to buy one side or the other, or if they just felt they could hijack an election, but theories abound.
One is that they are working for the Democrats, trying to split the conservative vote. Possible. Rich guys, power, Possible. Doubtful. Another is that they are working for the Republicans trying to split the liberal vote. Possible, youth oriented, demographics show liberal tendencies, Possible, Doubtful. Another is that they are just trying to win an election directly for the hedge fund managers so they can directly change the tax structure in their favor. Possible. More likely. Any way you slice it, it is the lowest form of rich people, claiming to be aligned with the disenfranchised poor.
Why do I say the lowest form of rich people. Industrialists build things and provide jobs. Even the green movement creates hard goods and creates jobs. Wall street, to a degree helps creation of jobs. Hedge Funds though:
"A hedge fund is a private pool of capital actively managed by an investment adviser.[1][2] Hedge funds are only open for investment to a limited number of accredited or qualified investors who meet criteria set by regulators. These investors can be institutions, such as pension funds, university endowments and foundations, or high net worth individuals."
Further:
"Because hedge funds are not sold to the public or retail investors, their advisers have historically not been subject to the same restrictions that govern other investment fund advisers, with regard to how the fund may be structured and how strategies are employed. Hedge funds must now comply with many of the same statutory and regulatory restrictions as other institutional market participants.[8] Regulations passed in the United States and Europe after the 2008 credit crisis are intended to increase government oversight of hedge funds and eliminate any regulatory gaps.[9]"
(Ibid)
Seems we have a winner as to the motivations of this particularly sleazy group. Recent changes to the law will regulate the back-door dealings of hedge fund managers. We can't have that now can we? This is not politics as usual. This is far worse. This is people willing to do anything, to preserve a good old boy network of legalized insider dealing, at the expense of those who can least afford it. And they don't even feel it is worth falsifying donation records. We are so far beneath them as to be not even worth lying to.
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Illinois math
http://www.nwherald.com/2011/11/25/state-reaping-less-from-lottery-in-new-fiscal-year/alruvan/
We are then assured this is only temporary.
"The state last year chose Northstar Lottery Group as the Illinois Lottery's first-ever private manager, promising that sales – and therefore the state's share of revenue – would increase."
A little history is presented. The comedic potential builds. Then the punchline:
"Northstar CEO Connie Laverty O'Connor said total sales are up 12 percent and instant ticket sales are up 23 percent, compared to last year"
This is odd since the State's revenues are down... Some clarification please.
"O'Connor said the company still is paying expenses incurred last spring for advertising and equipment as it prepared to take over."
So a state lottery, which has existed for decades, needed advertising and equipment? Perhaps I don't fully understand. Perhaps there is full disclosure, and this is the truth.
William of Occam was a 14th century philosopher who is credited with a bit of logic we all know and love, even if we don't know the name. Occam's razor states that the simplest solution is probably correct. What would the simplest solution be here in the land of Honest Abe Lincoln? Let's read further...
"Reports show the state's share of lottery revenue dropped by $2 million in July, to $41 million; by $4 million in August, to $35 million; and by $6 million October, to $49 million. It rose by $6 million, to $59 million, in September."
I don't normally begin with a link, but if you want to read the whole thing here you go. Headlines are all something like: State Lottery revenues down for fiscal year. Something like that. Here are some excerpts. I am using the one from my newspaper, but it was an Associated Press article, so it was everywhere.
"The state's share of Illinois Lottery revenue dropped in three of the first four months of the fiscal year compared to the same period last year"
We are then assured this is only temporary.
"The state last year chose Northstar Lottery Group as the Illinois Lottery's first-ever private manager, promising that sales – and therefore the state's share of revenue – would increase."
A little history is presented. The comedic potential builds. Then the punchline:
"Northstar CEO Connie Laverty O'Connor said total sales are up 12 percent and instant ticket sales are up 23 percent, compared to last year"
This is odd since the State's revenues are down... Some clarification please.
"O'Connor said the company still is paying expenses incurred last spring for advertising and equipment as it prepared to take over."
So a state lottery, which has existed for decades, needed advertising and equipment? Perhaps I don't fully understand. Perhaps there is full disclosure, and this is the truth.
William of Occam was a 14th century philosopher who is credited with a bit of logic we all know and love, even if we don't know the name. Occam's razor states that the simplest solution is probably correct. What would the simplest solution be here in the land of Honest Abe Lincoln? Let's read further...
"Reports show the state's share of lottery revenue dropped by $2 million in July, to $41 million; by $4 million in August, to $35 million; and by $6 million October, to $49 million. It rose by $6 million, to $59 million, in September."
So down 2M, down 4M, down 6M, and up 6M. -2+ -4 + -6 + 6 = -6. The state of Illinois is down a net of 6 million dollars, in a year when total sales are up 12%. The article does not state what the total sales were however. But hey this is the internet folks. 3,2,1...
"The Illinois Lottery ended fiscal year 2011 on June 30, with another record-breaking year – its ninth consecutive year of increasing sales. During fiscal year 2011, which ran from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011, the Lottery generated $2.278 billion in sales, an increase of 3% over last year. Over the past five-year period, since fiscal year 2007, Lottery sales have increased by more than 11%. "
You read that right. Another record year. 2.278 Billion, with a B, in annual sales. And the states share is 41M + 35M + 49M + 59M = 184 Million.
http://www.illinoislottery.com/subsections/news01.htm
The lottery's own page says that 58 cent of every dollar is paid as prizes, the state gets 30 cent, 7 cent is for retailer/ vendor commissions and bonuses, and 5 cent for administrative costs.
Some math, and some double checking later and we have, assuming the total sales of 2.278 billion, as reported: Total prize payout 1,321,240,000. (1.32124 B) Admin costs of 113,900,000 (113.9 M) Vendor take as 159,460,000 (159.46 M) and the State's share as 683,400,000 (683.4 M).
I may not know how to use the square root of -1 in an equation, but I know that 683.4 Million is a hell of a lot more than 184 million. 499.4 Million to be exact. That is 499,400,000 missing from the State's share. I think that the news needs to dig a bit deeper on this one. Why are we not gathering torches and pitchforks, and marching on Springfield? Corruption in Illinois is a big friggin' joke. It's funny too: right up until you realize who it's being played on.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/26/illinois-budget-watchdog-_n_981882.html
"In a statement announcing the report, Laurence Msall, Civic Federation president, described the state's recent budget process as "somewhat improved" over recent years, as the annual gap between revenue and expenses was significantly reduced -- from $3.9 billion to $454 million."
here is a good block quote...
"The Illinois Lottery ended fiscal year 2011 on June 30, with another record-breaking year – its ninth consecutive year of increasing sales. During fiscal year 2011, which ran from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011, the Lottery generated $2.278 billion in sales, an increase of 3% over last year. Over the past five-year period, since fiscal year 2007, Lottery sales have increased by more than 11%. "
You read that right. Another record year. 2.278 Billion, with a B, in annual sales. And the states share is 41M + 35M + 49M + 59M = 184 Million.
http://www.illinoislottery.com/subsections/news01.htm
The lottery's own page says that 58 cent of every dollar is paid as prizes, the state gets 30 cent, 7 cent is for retailer/ vendor commissions and bonuses, and 5 cent for administrative costs.
Some math, and some double checking later and we have, assuming the total sales of 2.278 billion, as reported: Total prize payout 1,321,240,000. (1.32124 B) Admin costs of 113,900,000 (113.9 M) Vendor take as 159,460,000 (159.46 M) and the State's share as 683,400,000 (683.4 M).
I may not know how to use the square root of -1 in an equation, but I know that 683.4 Million is a hell of a lot more than 184 million. 499.4 Million to be exact. That is 499,400,000 missing from the State's share. I think that the news needs to dig a bit deeper on this one. Why are we not gathering torches and pitchforks, and marching on Springfield? Corruption in Illinois is a big friggin' joke. It's funny too: right up until you realize who it's being played on.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/26/illinois-budget-watchdog-_n_981882.html
"In a statement announcing the report, Laurence Msall, Civic Federation president, described the state's recent budget process as "somewhat improved" over recent years, as the annual gap between revenue and expenses was significantly reduced -- from $3.9 billion to $454 million."
So the amount that the state is short is 45.4 million LESS than what they were shorted by the lottery.
THAT IS A SURPLUS OF 45.4 MILLION. Now that may not seem like much when the deficit is 8+ billion, but if each year we take in more than we spend we get out of the hole. Instead, we are crawling further in.
All numbers reported are as presented by Northstar lottery group and the Illinois lottery. All derivations are mine, so feel free to double check them. I did twice. All anger, ire, rage, and revolution should be directed toward the State of Illinois.
http://www2.illinois.gov/Pages/ContactUs.aspx
That's the address above. Please let them know how you feel. And remember this crap come the next election. Remind me: I'll re-run this post.
http://www2.illinois.gov/Pages/ContactUs.aspx
That's the address above. Please let them know how you feel. And remember this crap come the next election. Remind me: I'll re-run this post.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Ron Paul stabs Joe Biden in desperate bid for attention.
In an effort to get any billing at all despite winning yet another Republican straw poll; Ron Paul fatally stabbed Vice-President Joe Biden in the neck with an uncooked lasagna noodle that had been sharpened, according to anonymous sources. Paul, who is consistently listed as an "also ran" by the media despite winning nearly every straw poll was apparently in a rage over the attention being received by Herman Cain.
"I just don't understand," Paul was quoted as saying. "something might have happened 20 friggin' years ago and this becomes an issue. I thought we still had high unemployment. I mean, What the hell?"
Paul was detained by capital police for most of an afternoon before being released on his own recognizance, since members of congress are incapable of wrongdoing. He was referring, of course to the flap over allegations of sexual harassment dating to when Cain was in charge of the National Association of People who Spit in Food. In a news story broken by politico, it was disclosed that perhaps there was something that happened resulting in a settlement, which included a gag order. One alleged victim, apparently completely ignorant of what a gag order entails, said she will come forward with her story anyway.
This just in, apparently, not to be outdone, Rick Perry has challenged Mitt Romney to settle the Primary election "Texas Style." Apparently this entails the two contenders taking turns kicking each other between the legs until one gives up. Mr. Romney the current leader in every way except those involving numbers or math, could not be reached for comment. Michele Bachmann, ever the voice of reason, stated "I don't believe that's how it works, but I guarantee a Bachmann victory if that is how it has to be." She further stated that she looks forward to running against Mrs. Clinton in November.
If you need me to tell you this was satire you are a sad, sad individual.
"I just don't understand," Paul was quoted as saying. "something might have happened 20 friggin' years ago and this becomes an issue. I thought we still had high unemployment. I mean, What the hell?"
Paul was detained by capital police for most of an afternoon before being released on his own recognizance, since members of congress are incapable of wrongdoing. He was referring, of course to the flap over allegations of sexual harassment dating to when Cain was in charge of the National Association of People who Spit in Food. In a news story broken by politico, it was disclosed that perhaps there was something that happened resulting in a settlement, which included a gag order. One alleged victim, apparently completely ignorant of what a gag order entails, said she will come forward with her story anyway.
This just in, apparently, not to be outdone, Rick Perry has challenged Mitt Romney to settle the Primary election "Texas Style." Apparently this entails the two contenders taking turns kicking each other between the legs until one gives up. Mr. Romney the current leader in every way except those involving numbers or math, could not be reached for comment. Michele Bachmann, ever the voice of reason, stated "I don't believe that's how it works, but I guarantee a Bachmann victory if that is how it has to be." She further stated that she looks forward to running against Mrs. Clinton in November.
If you need me to tell you this was satire you are a sad, sad individual.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Ron Paul has lost my respect.
Anyone who has known me for any length of time knows that I am an ardent supporter of Ron Paul. They also know that I have been since before I could vote. The man has made some brilliant points about the need for less government intrusion in our lives and again, anyone who knows me knows that I feel much the same. I have backed his efforts. I have voted for him. I have explained his positions to people, since the media seems to have forgotten that occasionally people with an ounce of brain run under one ticket or the other. Or in his case, until recently, a third party.
If you hadn't heard, we have recently fired a missile at, and killed, a terrorist leader. There are those who would argue that this was a military action, not an assassination. I am not one of them. I will not shrink away from what this was. I also will not pretend that it is somehow morally superior to have troops march in, at great risk to their own lives, and kill him with a bullet. The end result is a dead terrorist. How we killed him is academic.
In referring to said removal of the newest terrorist leader by a long distance missile, there was his recent quote: "and now we are told that assassination of foreigners, as well as American citizens, is legitimate and necessary to provide security for our people. It is my firm opinion that nothing could be further from the truth."
Let's dismember that particularly asinine statement, just for fun, shall we. Firstly, an American citizen who removes themselves from the country and leads an organization against America is by definition, an enemy combatant. Otherwise Abraham Lincoln is our country's preeminent assassin. Remember that Civil War thing. Blue guys, grey guys, lots of guns. Yeah that was a group of American Citizens who made themselves enemies of America. (that's the way it's taught up here anyway.) But assuming that Mr. Paul is right, then honest Abe is our greatest villain. (He is not the good guy we were taught, by the way. That is for another post though.)
Moving on. The assassination of the enemies of America is acceptable. I could make an elaborate moral justification of this, but I do not need to. If we can eliminate the enemies of America by a method that does not endanger the lives of Americans are we not obligated to? That aside: If we have the ability to plant a missile in someone's teeth from so far away that they don't even know where it came from, should we not? (I never know if question marks are appropriate for rhetorical questions.)
Let's face it, the weak will of the American public and the consummate lack of testicular fortitude of our government has crippled the greatest military the world has ever known. The only thing we have that everyone fears is our ability to remove a threat to our way of life from a distance. We should be able to, as the worlds foremost military power, cause a sudden eruption of liquid flatulence from every terrorist in the world, at the mere mention we are coming for them.
So let's review. Foreign or American born terrorists are enemy combatants. Assassinating them is not only "legitimate and necessary", but preferable. Ron Paul is not fit to lead, because he is not able to separate the idealism of his morals from the reality of running the free world. So when Mr.Paul says that this was an assassination I say, "You're damned skippy it was."
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
The Tea-Party is not Libertarian.
In nature extremophiles are creatures which live in environments we had assumed were unsuitable for life. Near a volcanic undersea vent live tube worms who filter their food from the ocean nearby. In the Arctic ice live polar worms, which also filter their food from the barely liquid water around them. Both are worms, both cannot exist where other creatures live, both are only dimly aware of their surroundings, and most creatures, including people, are completely unaware of their existence at all. Not unlike political extremists from both sides. Volcanic and polar are analogues of reactionary and radical.
It is from this position, somewhere in the middle, that I have learned about the Tea-Party. As I am a Libertarian myself I have become very offended that these extremists, who are nothing more than the "Religious Right" reincarnated, are masquerading as Libertarians. When the infiltrated and began taking over the Republicans I didn't care. Hell, I thought it was funny. This is something else.
You see a Libertarian may believe in a religion, but it will not be the justification for every decision they make. Read the pamphlets for the Tea-Party. They base everything on the "word of God", (whom I sincerely hope they meet so he can set them straight on a few things, but that is another post for someone else's blog). The Tea-Party seeks to impose their way of thinking on the rest of us. Again this is diametrically opposed to Libertarianism.
In a quest to be all things to all conservatives they are not only fracturing an already broken party, they are claiming to be something they are not. President Obama is closer to a Libertarian than the Tea-Party, and that is not to say he is remotely close. He isn't. But then at least he isn't claiming to be. (Note that I disagree politically with President Obama, but still refer to him by his title. He is still the President. My dad is a "Mr." The leader of the free world gets a title, even if you don't like him. Calling the President "Mr." is disrespectful to the country, not the man.)
Libertarians seek individual freedom. Anyone claiming to represent this ideal, and seeking to impose their beliefs on anyone else, is either completely ignorant of the meaning of the word, or purposefully lying. Personally I think that the Tea-Party is good for the country. Having bested all of our fascist enemies outside the country, we need a reminder of what we might become from within. We need them to serve as a shining example of what we must not allow ourselves to become.
I have tried to stay away from bashing any particular side of the aisle. I don't feel it serves much purpose to be flagrantly partisan. In this case though I felt a need to identify the inaccuracies and hypocrisy of this small, if much talked about, group. When I tell people I am Libertarian I do not want them to think of anything remotely like the Tea-Party.
It is from this position, somewhere in the middle, that I have learned about the Tea-Party. As I am a Libertarian myself I have become very offended that these extremists, who are nothing more than the "Religious Right" reincarnated, are masquerading as Libertarians. When the infiltrated and began taking over the Republicans I didn't care. Hell, I thought it was funny. This is something else.
You see a Libertarian may believe in a religion, but it will not be the justification for every decision they make. Read the pamphlets for the Tea-Party. They base everything on the "word of God", (whom I sincerely hope they meet so he can set them straight on a few things, but that is another post for someone else's blog). The Tea-Party seeks to impose their way of thinking on the rest of us. Again this is diametrically opposed to Libertarianism.
In a quest to be all things to all conservatives they are not only fracturing an already broken party, they are claiming to be something they are not. President Obama is closer to a Libertarian than the Tea-Party, and that is not to say he is remotely close. He isn't. But then at least he isn't claiming to be. (Note that I disagree politically with President Obama, but still refer to him by his title. He is still the President. My dad is a "Mr." The leader of the free world gets a title, even if you don't like him. Calling the President "Mr." is disrespectful to the country, not the man.)
Libertarians seek individual freedom. Anyone claiming to represent this ideal, and seeking to impose their beliefs on anyone else, is either completely ignorant of the meaning of the word, or purposefully lying. Personally I think that the Tea-Party is good for the country. Having bested all of our fascist enemies outside the country, we need a reminder of what we might become from within. We need them to serve as a shining example of what we must not allow ourselves to become.
I have tried to stay away from bashing any particular side of the aisle. I don't feel it serves much purpose to be flagrantly partisan. In this case though I felt a need to identify the inaccuracies and hypocrisy of this small, if much talked about, group. When I tell people I am Libertarian I do not want them to think of anything remotely like the Tea-Party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)